FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LM ERICSSON LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-108320-ir-11
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns theWorker's claim that the Company's failure to give him annual appraisals caused him significant loss.This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 18th November 2011 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “ I find that while the appraisals as envisaged did not take place, events were overtaken by the collective agreements reached either directly between the parties or under the auspices of the LRC/Labour Court. Consequently, I am upholding the position of the employer and finding against the claimant. ”
On the 21st February, 2012 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27thApril, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Master Engineer's agreement negotiated in 1999 was never really adhered to or observed in the letter or spirit presumably intended by the parties who negotiated it.
2.Other employees were treated more favourably (in terms of remuneration) than the Worker.
3.The unfavourable treatment received by the Worker resulted in financial loss of ten thousand euro per year for ten years such that it was claimed that the Worker's salary should be adjusted to reflect this and full retrospection was sought.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Worker's salary was reviewed by way of national wage agreement increase.
2.The Worker was not doing equivalent work to that of two named colleagues because he had been promoted to Master Engineer level seven years after them such that there were different stages of development and there was not parity of roles.
3.The Company submitted that the Worker did not have an entitlement to parity of salary with colleagues who had been longer at the grade and that it had not treated the Worker unequally.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
Under the terms of the agreements in place the Applicant was entitled to an "appraisal" in 2002 that, had it been carried out, may or may not have resulted in a pay increase. However, due to changes in management personnel at the time the "appraisal" did not take place either in 2002 when it fell due or subsequently when it was twice recommended as appropriate and overdue. In the event the "appraisal" was never carried out and the Applicant's pay level was caught by the general constraints that subsequently came into force.
The Court takes the view that the Applicant has suffered financially as a result and is entitled to redress.
Accordingly, the Court decides that, with effect from the date of this Decision, the Company should move the Applicant to the mid point of the Master Engineer salary scale currently in place which the Court understands is in the region of €61,000. This figure includes a sum in lieu of retrospection.
This decision has been made strictly on the facts of this case and does not constitute a precedent for any other employee.
The Court further recommends that the Company and the Union meet to agree the status and future of the various Collective Agreements that appear to have been ignored by both sides in recent times with a view to restoring certainty for the staff purportedly covered by them.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
14th May, 2012______________________
COFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Colm O'Flaherty, Court Secretary.